Residents face uncertainty as their Burlington Beach homes could become parkland

VIDEO: Either homes or parkland on the Burlington beach strip

Jim and Marie Milner, long-time residents of Burlington's beach strip, get to keep their homes - for now. The region had been looking at buying 30 properties between the Skyway wastewater treatment plant and the canal to create more parkland.

Beach Strip Home - OUT BACK

Jim and Marie Milner, long time residents of Burlington's beach strip, face the lake with their home in the background in a view seen from the rail path.

Beach Strip Home - MILNERS

Gary Yokoyama,The Hamilton Spectator

Jim and Marie Milner, long-time residents of Burlington's beach strip, get to keep their homes - for now. The region had been looking at buying 30 properties between the Skyway wastewater treatment plant and the canal to create more parkland.

Feel a hot breeze on a sultry Saturday at high noon; slide off your sandals and stand ankle deep in the cool lake.

Facing the Burlington Beach shoreline, you would have no clue that houses exist here.

But they do, a hundred paces away, along the waterfront trail, concealed by trees and bushes, no two houses the same, quaint and quirky and pretty.

And not just houses, but rather homes. Memories, first loves, dreams.

Those who have lived with Lake Ontario in their back yards, some for decades, have long been contemplating their existence — that is, whether it will continue here or not.

The threat of the government forcing them to sell their homes in order to turn the entire Burlington beach strip into parkland has existed since at least the late 1970s.

The families living in about 30 homes along Lakeshore Road remain in the crosshairs, but the issue may finally be coming to a head. A recommendation at Conservation Halton to get rid of the homes was recently narrowly defeated on a 6-6 tie vote (several members of its board of directors were not present).

But the issue still has to move through Burlington city council, and then Halton Regional council in late summer and early fall.

Jim and Marie Milner would love to see the question put to bed in their lifetimes — most of which they've spent on the beach.

They were born in Hamilton and their families moved to the beach when they were kids. They met here in the late 1940s, hanging out at White Towers Snack Bar beside Marie's childhood house, where you could get a foot-long for less than a quarter.

They married in 1955 and have lived in the same little house for 42 years, near where Eastport Drive meets Lakeshore, in the shadow of the Skyway.

They bristle at how those who want to take away their place keep calling them "cottages," as though their home is temporary.

"We're here because we want to be here. … All our kids grew up here," said Jim. "We've never been anywhere else."

The Milners are players in a drama on the beach that has been going on for a very long time. Historically the beach communities on the Hamilton and Burlington sides of the lift bridge canal were unique and separate from the cities proper.

Ultimately, debate arose over whether the beachfronts should have a residential component at all. Politicians elected to pursue property acquisition — or "expropriation," depending on your point of view — to convert the property into parkland.

In Hamilton, 269 of 685 properties were acquired between 1976 and 1985 before the city abandoned the policy in the face of heated neighbourhood opposition and the escalating cost of buying the properties.

Instead, the city put in a sanitary sewage system and saved the beach community, which has since prospered and is now considered a prime and not inexpensive place to live.

But Halton Region has continued to officially support acquisition, although not actively in recent years. Between 1976 and 2000, the region bought and tore down 129 cottages and houses, most of them near the water and on leased land.

The 30 homes that remain are privately owned. The cost to the region of buying those properties is estimated at $10 million.

(The region designates the land as parkland, Burlington's official plan designates it as residential low density and mixed-use.)

A primary argument in a conservation authority staff report for demolishing homes near the beach is potential flooding.

None of the homes have basements. But the Milners say they have seen it all. They've been here with the lake at its highest and nastiest, including Hurricane Hazel in 1954 when sandbags were piled on the beach. And they have never had a flood.

Conservation authority board member Alan Elgar, who voted to support property acquisition, says he's concerned for the safety of residents.

"You think about Calgary — there had never been flooding like that before there, either."

Some residents have invested heavily in their homes and have no wish to sell them, especially to a government authority that will almost certainly not pay market value.

Elgar counters that residents have known for years that land acquisition remained the region's policy.

But resident Chris Collier laments the mixed signals. After his home suffered fire damage a few years ago, he asked regional officials if they wanted to buy his property. The answer was no, so instead he upgraded his home, which is now one of the most impressive on the street.

Burlington councillor Marianne Meed Ward opposes acquisition, saying flooding seems a non-issue. She says the amount of parkland to be gained by demolishing homes is negligible, public access to the beach is already assured, and the cost for buying out properties is more than they can afford.

"The main issue is the human factor, the history there," she said. "It would be morally unconscionable to move out homeowners — for what? To add more parking?"

Those who cycle and walk the waterfront trail behind the homes often enjoy stopping to chat with a beach resident, even have a glass of water or use their washroom in an emergency. One cyclist said she feels safer using the trail knowing that people live here.

Collier shakes his head when considering how long talk of expropriating their property has been going on.

"My dad explained it to me years ago, how they are trying to take our homes — and now I'm explaining it to my kids. How much longer will they hold us for ransom?"

Richard Hodge hasn't lived here long, but has no desire to leave. He arrived about six years ago with his wife, Helen, and their three sons. The renovated former hotel was a dream home after moving out of their cramped house in the city.

Hodge lives here with his boys, all in their 20s, and a tiny teacup Yorkie named Bella. A civil engineer, Hodge built a spectacular deck from which they can see the lake.

But Helen is not here to take in the sunlit horizon. She died of leukemia.

"It was her dream to have a home on the beach," he said. "You never know what life has in store."

(4) Comments

By will|JULY 09, 2013 12:36 AM

One other thing, Im standing on the path between the houses and the beach, directly in front of a massive hydro tower. As a taxpayer in this community Im wondering if I have any say where this (very low figure 10Million Dollars) money that is supposed to go toward removing homeowners. I'd suggest they spend it to remove the towers and leave a community of peaceful citizens alone.

This community is very similar to the one on Toronto Island, similar but also different. The biggest similarity is how the public reacts to the homes as they stroll by on the walking path and comment on the beauty of the community, the biggest difference is that we on the beach own our homes (not leased). Conservation Halton recommends acquiring our properties, for a whole bunch of reasons that don't ring true with the actual situation here, one only needs to venture through the park and notice all of the posted signs warning where Roundup has been sprayed to kill poison ivy, Roundup is a non specific herbicide it kills all plants that it touches, breaks my heart as a resident and environmentalist. Peace

If it's that big of a flood risk then surely having the sewage treatment plant down there - one of the city's largest and most important pieces of infrastructure - wasn't a good idea either. I think this is a case where Burlington should follow Hamilton's lead and maintain a mix of residential and recreational uses. Parkland is a great asset, but so is community. We can have both there.

Mr Elgar - Please don't ignore the lived experience of residents. If the Calgary flood is your example of what might happen, then shouldn't we be moving everyone in the GTA (including Oakville that you represent) away from the lake waterfront and rivers and creeks. Fear mongering instead of paying attention to empirical experience is a disservice to residents.